Physics of the Afterlife

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

And somehow that isn’t circular reasoning.

[/quote]
Who’s to say theists don’t have a sense of humor =).

However I guess I have to introduce the principle of sufficient reason since that is whats being brought up. All the principle of sufficient reason states is that everything has a reason for the way it is(including existence) and that the reason for it is either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.

We use this principle all the time, for example there is a white ford pickup across my driveway. There is a reason why it is white instead of no reason.

As for God him being a necessary being or uncontingent being being essential to who he is.

(edit) A brute fact would be be a statement has no explanation for why it is. I could state that when I open my door and I see a flaming bag of poop on my porch could be a brute fact, even though experience tells us there is a reason for it.[/quote]

Claiming something is the necessity of its own nature makes it a brute fact, because it offers no explanation for its existence beyond the existence itself.

You are claiming god exists because it is the necessity of his nature to exist.

Fine.

I’m claiming the infinite causal series exists because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.[/quote]
Well all the members in set X are contingent making the set itself contingent as all the members themselves could have not existed, where is the logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. For if the set of contingents were a necessary being than it would result in a logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. However there is nothing logically contradictory in saying set X could have not existed which is sufficient to show that set X is not a necessary being.

God on the other hand being uncontingent sitting outside the set of contingents, the statement God could have not existed results in a logical contradiction which means he is the necessary being regardless of whether chose or not chose to being the set of contingents into existence.[/quote]

The set is qualitatively different from its constituent parts. Just because an element of the set is contingent doesn’t prove the set itself is contingent.

Indeed, since the set is infinitely proactive and retroactive, it has no beginning and no end. It is impossible for it not to have existed, and definitionally it is a necessary being.

182

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m claiming the infinite causal series exists because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.[/quote]

Even though it’s logically fallacious your going to stick with 'it is, ‘cause it is’? [/quote]

It’s not logically fallacious.

You allow that at least one thing can exist because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.

I’m saying that one thing is the infinite causal series.[/quote]

Uh, what? Where did I say I allow one thing to exist because of the necessity of it’s nature to exist? I said nothing of the sort, at all, ever. [/quote]

You allow god to exist because it is the necessity of his nature to exist.

183

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

And somehow that isn’t circular reasoning.

[/quote]
Who’s to say theists don’t have a sense of humor =).

However I guess I have to introduce the principle of sufficient reason since that is whats being brought up. All the principle of sufficient reason states is that everything has a reason for the way it is(including existence) and that the reason for it is either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.

We use this principle all the time, for example there is a white ford pickup across my driveway. There is a reason why it is white instead of no reason.

As for God him being a necessary being or uncontingent being being essential to who he is.

(edit) A brute fact would be be a statement has no explanation for why it is. I could state that when I open my door and I see a flaming bag of poop on my porch could be a brute fact, even though experience tells us there is a reason for it.[/quote]

Claiming something is the necessity of its own nature makes it a brute fact, because it offers no explanation for its existence beyond the existence itself.

You are claiming god exists because it is the necessity of his nature to exist.

Fine.

I’m claiming the infinite causal series exists because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.[/quote]
Well all the members in set X are contingent making the set itself contingent as all the members themselves could have not existed, where is the logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. For if the set of contingents were a necessary being than it would result in a logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. However there is nothing logically contradictory in saying set X could have not existed which is sufficient to show that set X is not a necessary being.

God on the other hand being uncontingent sitting outside the set of contingents, the statement God could have not existed results in a logical contradiction which means he is the necessary being regardless of whether chose or not chose to being the set of contingents into existence.[/quote]

The set is qualitatively different from its constituent parts. Just because an element of the set is contingent doesn’t prove the set itself is contingent.

Indeed, since the set is infinitely proactive and retroactive, it has no beginning and no end. It is impossible for it not to have existed, and definitionally it is a necessary being.[/quote]
Regardless of the problems concerning an actual infinite which I may actually have to get into if this continues, where is the logical impossibility of all of the members of the set could have failed to exist simultaneously or that the set could contain a finite members of contingents as well.

184

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The deductive argument from contingency.

  1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
  2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
  3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
  4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
  6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]

6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.

If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…

…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.

They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]

You are right. It would be a circular argument if you dont believe in the concept of infinity.

But I think infinity is possible and quite likely. It’s just hard to imagine.[/quote]
… Its still circular even if an actual “infinite” of contingent things existed, the number of contingent things is irrelevant.[/quote]

The number of contingent things is irrelevant unless its an infinite number of contingent things.

I think you are confusing infinite with a really really big number. If its infinite - THERE IS NO FIRST! If there was a first it wouldn’t be infinite. Unless you’re talking about an infinite progression from a starting point. Which is not an ‘Infinite Regress’.[/quote]
Ok lets say there is a set of contingent things named X, and Xn is describing the number of contingent things in the set and it could be any natural number (1,2,3…) or as dubiously claimed if it could exist an actual infinite. Saying that the explanation of X1 is due to the infinite number of contingent things prior to it ignores why the set of contingent things X itself exists.[/quote]

The set itself is the brute fact.[/quote]

Exactly! It’s just the same as the cosmology argument using the ‘Uncaused cause’ as a brute fact.

It exists because if it didn’t we wouldn’t be here to ask the question.

Both arguments rely on a brute fact. If someone can explain why an uncaused cause is not a brute fact then it wont be an uncaused cause.

185

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

And somehow that isn’t circular reasoning.

[/quote]
Who’s to say theists don’t have a sense of humor =).

However I guess I have to introduce the principle of sufficient reason since that is whats being brought up. All the principle of sufficient reason states is that everything has a reason for the way it is(including existence) and that the reason for it is either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.

We use this principle all the time, for example there is a white ford pickup across my driveway. There is a reason why it is white instead of no reason.

As for God him being a necessary being or uncontingent being being essential to who he is.

(edit) A brute fact would be be a statement has no explanation for why it is. I could state that when I open my door and I see a flaming bag of poop on my porch could be a brute fact, even though experience tells us there is a reason for it.[/quote]

Claiming something is the necessity of its own nature makes it a brute fact, because it offers no explanation for its existence beyond the existence itself.

You are claiming god exists because it is the necessity of his nature to exist.

Fine.

I’m claiming the infinite causal series exists because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.[/quote]
Well all the members in set X are contingent making the set itself contingent as all the members themselves could have not existed, where is the logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. For if the set of contingents were a necessary being than it would result in a logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. However there is nothing logically contradictory in saying set X could have not existed which is sufficient to show that set X is not a necessary being.

God on the other hand being uncontingent sitting outside the set of contingents, the statement God could have not existed results in a logical contradiction which means he is the necessary being regardless of whether chose or not chose to being the set of contingents into existence.[/quote]

The set is qualitatively different from its constituent parts. Just because an element of the set is contingent doesn’t prove the set itself is contingent.

Indeed, since the set is infinitely proactive and retroactive, it has no beginning and no end. It is impossible for it not to have existed, and definitionally it is a necessary being.[/quote]
Regardless of the problems concerning an actual infinite which I may actually have to get into if this continues, where is the logical impossibility of all of the members of the set could have failed to exist simultaneously or that the set could contain a finite members of contingents as well.[/quote]

I’ll answer your question Socratically :slight_smile:

Where is the logical impossibility that god could not exist?

186

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m claiming the infinite causal series exists because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.[/quote]

Even though it’s logically fallacious your going to stick with 'it is, ‘cause it is’? [/quote]

It’s not logically fallacious.

You allow that at least one thing can exist because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.

I’m saying that one thing is the infinite causal series.[/quote]

Uh, what? Where did I say I allow one thing to exist because of the necessity of it’s nature to exist? I said nothing of the sort, at all, ever. [/quote]

You allow god to exist because it is the necessity of his nature to exist.[/quote]

Again when did I ever say this? I would never say such a thing. Second, ‘I allow God to exist’? Really? Because I never knew it was up to me. His existence is most assuredly beyond my control. I know the Uncaused-cause to exist because existence requires it, or existence is impossible.
You are allowing yourself the luxury to rest on a fallacious argument based on something I never said? You may need to take a break if that’s how your going to go.

This is your reasoning so far as I can tell:
"Pat never said X, so because he can not say or believe X, I am going to throw it in his face that it is what he said, even though he did not, and therfore justify my belief of ‘Y’…
Dude, WTF?

187

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The deductive argument from contingency.

  1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
  2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
  3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
  4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
  6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]

6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.

If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…

…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.

They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]

You are right. It would be a circular argument if you dont believe in the concept of infinity.

But I think infinity is possible and quite likely. It’s just hard to imagine.[/quote]
… Its still circular even if an actual “infinite” of contingent things existed, the number of contingent things is irrelevant.[/quote]

The number of contingent things is irrelevant unless its an infinite number of contingent things.

I think you are confusing infinite with a really really big number. If its infinite - THERE IS NO FIRST! If there was a first it wouldn’t be infinite. Unless you’re talking about an infinite progression from a starting point. Which is not an ‘Infinite Regress’.[/quote]
Ok lets say there is a set of contingent things named X, and Xn is describing the number of contingent things in the set and it could be any natural number (1,2,3…) or as dubiously claimed if it could exist an actual infinite. Saying that the explanation of X1 is due to the infinite number of contingent things prior to it ignores why the set of contingent things X itself exists.[/quote]

The set itself is the brute fact.[/quote]

Exactly! It’s just the same as the cosmology argument using the ‘Uncaused cause’ as a brute fact.

It exists because if it didn’t we wouldn’t be here to ask the question.

Both arguments rely on a brute fact. If someone can explain why an uncaused cause is not a brute fact then it wont be an uncaused cause.[/quote]

No your argument relies on brute facts. Cosmology relies on it’s premises to be factual, you’re relying on the hope that one day a logical fallacy may stop being a logical fallacy for your argument to be fact.

188

[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is the logical impossibility that god could not exist?
[/quote]
It’s not, so prove God does not exist…We’ve fulfilled burden of proof, you’ve fail to prove it wrong. So, make a counter argument that works.

189

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

And somehow that isn’t circular reasoning.

[/quote]
Who’s to say theists don’t have a sense of humor =).

However I guess I have to introduce the principle of sufficient reason since that is whats being brought up. All the principle of sufficient reason states is that everything has a reason for the way it is(including existence) and that the reason for it is either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.

We use this principle all the time, for example there is a white ford pickup across my driveway. There is a reason why it is white instead of no reason.

As for God him being a necessary being or uncontingent being being essential to who he is.

(edit) A brute fact would be be a statement has no explanation for why it is. I could state that when I open my door and I see a flaming bag of poop on my porch could be a brute fact, even though experience tells us there is a reason for it.[/quote]

Claiming something is the necessity of its own nature makes it a brute fact, because it offers no explanation for its existence beyond the existence itself.

You are claiming god exists because it is the necessity of his nature to exist.

Fine.

I’m claiming the infinite causal series exists because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.[/quote]
Well all the members in set X are contingent making the set itself contingent as all the members themselves could have not existed, where is the logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. For if the set of contingents were a necessary being than it would result in a logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. However there is nothing logically contradictory in saying set X could have not existed which is sufficient to show that set X is not a necessary being.

God on the other hand being uncontingent sitting outside the set of contingents, the statement God could have not existed results in a logical contradiction which means he is the necessary being regardless of whether chose or not chose to being the set of contingents into existence.[/quote]

The set is qualitatively different from its constituent parts. Just because an element of the set is contingent doesn’t prove the set itself is contingent.

Indeed, since the set is infinitely proactive and retroactive, it has no beginning and no end. It is impossible for it not to have existed, and definitionally it is a necessary being.[/quote]
Regardless of the problems concerning an actual infinite which I may actually have to get into if this continues, where is the logical impossibility of all of the members of the set could have failed to exist simultaneously or that the set could contain a finite members of contingents as well.[/quote]

I’ll answer your question Socratically :slight_smile:

Where is the logical impossibility that god could not exist?[/quote]
First lets review the definitions.

Contingent being - a being that if it exists can not-exist.

Necessary being - a being that if it exists cannot not-exist.

Any being is either a contingent or necessary in its existence, there is no third option since one is the negation of the other due to the law of excluded middle. So a non-contingent being would be a necessary in his existence while a unnecessary being would be contingent in its existence.

In the argument I posted it follows from 5 and 6 therefore 7 a necessary being exists.

The argument

  1. A necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
  2. The existing necessary being could not-exist.

Results in a contradiction.

190

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The deductive argument from contingency.

  1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
  2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
  3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
  4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
  6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]

6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.

If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…

…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.

They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]

You are right. It would be a circular argument if you dont believe in the concept of infinity.

But I think infinity is possible and quite likely. It’s just hard to imagine.[/quote]
… Its still circular even if an actual “infinite” of contingent things existed, the number of contingent things is irrelevant.[/quote]

The number of contingent things is irrelevant unless its an infinite number of contingent things.

I think you are confusing infinite with a really really big number. If its infinite - THERE IS NO FIRST! If there was a first it wouldn’t be infinite. Unless you’re talking about an infinite progression from a starting point. Which is not an ‘Infinite Regress’.[/quote]
Ok lets say there is a set of contingent things named X, and Xn is describing the number of contingent things in the set and it could be any natural number (1,2,3…) or as dubiously claimed if it could exist an actual infinite. Saying that the explanation of X1 is due to the infinite number of contingent things prior to it ignores why the set of contingent things X itself exists.[/quote]

The set itself is the brute fact.[/quote]

Exactly! It’s just the same as the cosmology argument using the ‘Uncaused cause’ as a brute fact.

It exists because if it didn’t we wouldn’t be here to ask the question.

Both arguments rely on a brute fact. If someone can explain why an uncaused cause is not a brute fact then it wont be an uncaused cause.[/quote]

No your argument relies on brute facts. Cosmology relies on it’s premises to be factual, you’re relying on the hope that one day a logical fallacy may stop being a logical fallacy for your argument to be fact.[/quote]

Do you agree with:

The uncaused cause exists because things such as life exist?

If so how does that differ from:

The infinite series exists because things such as life exists?

191

What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

192

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.

193

Adding to TTF’s last post is the idea of a static universe. Our species evolved in a time of space where certain conditions were right for life to evolve, but that does not mean those conditions were always present or that they will always be present.

An infinite universe does not mean that the current state of this universe will remain like this for ever and ever, or/and has always been like this for ever and ever.

The state of the universe does not matter.

The universe knows no beginning or end. The universe is God.

Now that’s a religion i could be part of!

194

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Adding to TTF’s last post is the idea of a static universe. Our species evolved in a time of space where certain conditions were right for life to evolve, but that does not mean those conditions were always present or that they will always be present.

An infinite universe does not mean that the current state of this universe will remain like this for ever and ever, or/and has always been like this for ever and ever.

The state of the universe does not matter.

The universe knows no beginning or end. The universe is God.

Now that’s a religion i could be part of![/quote]

Jaja, and your conscious mind is the means of God to see himself. Buddhists has known this for a long time.

195

I’m currently reading ‘Budhism plain and simple’.

I think Bushism has a lot going for it. Even if you’re not religious or have your own strong religious beliefs. I’d recommend it, its a good book to highlight how much we conceptualize and filter our experiences.

196

Regardless of ones opinion, buddhism is much easier to combine with modern science than any other traditional religion.

197

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m claiming the infinite causal series exists because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.[/quote]

Even though it’s logically fallacious your going to stick with 'it is, ‘cause it is’? [/quote]

It’s not logically fallacious.

You allow that at least one thing can exist because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.

I’m saying that one thing is the infinite causal series.[/quote]

Uh, what? Where did I say I allow one thing to exist because of the necessity of it’s nature to exist? I said nothing of the sort, at all, ever. [/quote]

You allow god to exist because it is the necessity of his nature to exist.[/quote]

Again when did I ever say this? I would never say such a thing. Second, ‘I allow God to exist’? Really? Because I never knew it was up to me. His existence is most assuredly beyond my control. I know the Uncaused-cause to exist because existence requires it, or existence is impossible.
You are allowing yourself the luxury to rest on a fallacious argument based on something I never said? You may need to take a break if that’s how your going to go.

This is your reasoning so far as I can tell:
"Pat never said X, so because he can not say or believe X, I am going to throw it in his face that it is what he said, even though he did not, and therfore justify my belief of ‘Y’…
Dude, WTF?[/quote]

You’re missing the point, so let me rephrase and be certain to use your exact words so the point Is perfectly clear:

You know an uncaused cause exists.

Therefore, you concede that at least one thing can be uncaused.

You claim that one thing is god.

I claim that one thing is an uncaused infinite series.

Both are possible, but mine is more parsimonious than yours.

198

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Regardless of ones opinion, buddhism is much easier to combine with modern science than any other traditional religion.[/quote]

I agree. I think that’s because it doesn’t attempt to answer the unaswerable with an extreme or certain view.

The more extreme and definitive your argument is the more you have to assume possibilities as certainties.

199

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is the logical impossibility that god could not exist?
[/quote]
It’s not, so prove God does not exist…We’ve fulfilled burden of proof, you’ve fail to prove it wrong. So, make a counter argument that works.[/quote]

It’s not? So you’re conceding that it’s not logically impossible that god could not exist? In other words, god actually could not exist?

I’m assuming you meant the opposite, but please confirm so I know how to respond.

200

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

And somehow that isn’t circular reasoning.

[/quote]
Who’s to say theists don’t have a sense of humor =).

However I guess I have to introduce the principle of sufficient reason since that is whats being brought up. All the principle of sufficient reason states is that everything has a reason for the way it is(including existence) and that the reason for it is either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.

We use this principle all the time, for example there is a white ford pickup across my driveway. There is a reason why it is white instead of no reason.

As for God him being a necessary being or uncontingent being being essential to who he is.

(edit) A brute fact would be be a statement has no explanation for why it is. I could state that when I open my door and I see a flaming bag of poop on my porch could be a brute fact, even though experience tells us there is a reason for it.[/quote]

Claiming something is the necessity of its own nature makes it a brute fact, because it offers no explanation for its existence beyond the existence itself.

You are claiming god exists because it is the necessity of his nature to exist.

Fine.

I’m claiming the infinite causal series exists because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.[/quote]
Well all the members in set X are contingent making the set itself contingent as all the members themselves could have not existed, where is the logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. For if the set of contingents were a necessary being than it would result in a logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. However there is nothing logically contradictory in saying set X could have not existed which is sufficient to show that set X is not a necessary being.

God on the other hand being uncontingent sitting outside the set of contingents, the statement God could have not existed results in a logical contradiction which means he is the necessary being regardless of whether chose or not chose to being the set of contingents into existence.[/quote]

The set is qualitatively different from its constituent parts. Just because an element of the set is contingent doesn’t prove the set itself is contingent.

Indeed, since the set is infinitely proactive and retroactive, it has no beginning and no end. It is impossible for it not to have existed, and definitionally it is a necessary being.[/quote]
Regardless of the problems concerning an actual infinite which I may actually have to get into if this continues, where is the logical impossibility of all of the members of the set could have failed to exist simultaneously or that the set could contain a finite members of contingents as well.[/quote]

I’ll answer your question Socratically :slight_smile:

Where is the logical impossibility that god could not exist?[/quote]
First lets review the definitions.

Contingent being - a being that if it exists can not-exist.

Necessary being - a being that if it exists cannot not-exist.

Any being is either a contingent or necessary in its existence, there is no third option since one is the negation of the other due to the law of excluded middle. So a non-contingent being would be a necessary in his existence while a unnecessary being would be contingent in its existence.

In the argument I posted it follows from 5 and 6 therefore 7 a necessary being exists.

The argument

  1. A necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
  2. The existing necessary being could not-exist.

Results in a contradiction.[/quote]

Agreed.

My point is that the necessary being is the infinite series. Definitionally, if it exists, it cannot not-exist.